Printer status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent, but the description adds real context beyond them: the transport (local MQTT), the guarantee that it never sends commands, and the two concrete failure modes (missing credentials, printer powered off). A small credit deduction only because it says nothing about latency or how the live snapshot is timed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: what it reads and how, the read-only guarantee, then prerequisites and failure modes. Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing exactly what the response contains (job state, temps, fans, AMS, HMS errors). Combined with the documented prerequisites and failure conditions, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or to decide it cannot.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional 'include_raw' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions it, adding no meaning beyond the structured field — the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the printer's live status over the local network (MQTT)') and then enumerates the data returned: job progress, temperatures, fans, AMS trays, filaments, HMS errors. None of the sibling tools (3MF/preset/slicing) overlap, so an agent can immediately tell this is the hardware-state tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete preconditions and failure conditions: host, serial and access code must be in config.json, and it fails if they are missing or the printer is off, with a pointer to connector_info for that setup. It omits an explicit 'do not use when...' clause, but there is no competing status tool among the siblings, so the gap is minor.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.